> -Original Message-
> From: Aled Morris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 01 September 1999 16:51
> It does apply in the UK - two spaces is pretty standard. I guess this
> isn't an Americanism (for once!)
Not everywhere in the UK, or maybe it's an age related thing. I was never
taught
> -Original Message-
> From: Aled Morris [mailto:al...@routers.co.uk]
> Sent: 01 September 1999 16:51
> It does apply in the UK - two spaces is pretty standard. I guess this
> isn't an Americanism (for once!)
Not everywhere in the UK, or maybe it's an age related thing. I was never
taugh
On Wed 1999-09-01 (16:40), Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> > :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> > :Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
> > It *had* to
On Wed 1999-09-01 (16:40), Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> > :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> > :Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
> > It *had* t
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
>> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
>> :
>> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
>> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
>> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
>> :
>> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
> :
> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> :Even in the digital age, I've alw
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
> :> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
> :
> :I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> :Even in the digital age, I've al
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> > reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> > testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
>
> Also so that common settings ca
> I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
Also so that common settings can be added. Besides "yes" and "no" there
could be ot
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, David O'Brien wrote:
> > I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> > reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> > testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
>
> Also so that common settings c
> I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
> reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
> testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case handling
Also so that common settings can be added. Besides "yes" and "no" there
could be o
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
> Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case h
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 16:46:11 MST, Doug wrote:
> Hoping I'm running out of nits,
:-)
Hi Doug,
I've had a week-end away from a keyboard to think about this. The only
reason we have to use case statements for case-insensitive variable
testing is because sh(1) doesn't offer any upper/lower case
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:40:20 +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
> if isyes ${thisvariable}
>
> case $1 of
> [Yy][Ee][Ss])
> exit 0
> ;;
> *)
> exit 1
> ;;
> esac
I hope you mean "in" instead of "of" and "return" instead of "exit". :-)
I like this. One of the reasons I like it so much is becaus
On Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:40:20 +0200, Leif Neland wrote:
> if isyes ${thisvariable}
>
> case $1 of
> [Yy][Ee][Ss])
> exit 0
> ;;
> *)
> exit 1
> ;;
> esac
I hope you mean "in" instead of "of" and "return" instead of "exit". :-)
I like this. One of the reasons I like it so much is becau
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
> which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
>
> Specifically, case statements look mor
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
> which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
>
> Specifically, case statements look mo
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
> Ben Smithurst wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
> >
> > Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> > values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> > :-)
>
>
On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
> Ben Smithurst wrote:
> >
> > Doug wrote:
> >
> > > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
> >
> > Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> > values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> > :-)
>
>
Ben Smithurst wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
>
> Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> :-)
*sigh* I am constantly flabbergasted by what people t
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is the reason for that
change? I do not like it, it makes the case lines look
strange. And I think there was a policy that style should
not be changed if there's no good re
Ben Smithurst wrote:
>
> Doug wrote:
>
> > Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
>
> Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
> values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
> :-)
*sigh* I am constantly flabbergasted by what people
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
Maybe I missed it, but what exactly is the reason for that
change? I do not like it, it makes the case lines look
strange. And I think there was a policy that style should
not be changed if there's no good r
Doug wrote:
> Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
:-)
--
Ben Smithurst| PGP: 0x99392F7D
b...@scientia.demon.co.uk | key available from key
Doug wrote:
> Okey dokey, I can take a hint. :)
Can you take another one, regarding the unnecessary spaces after the
values in your "case"s? i.e., that they should be taken out and shot?
:-)
--
Ben Smithurst| PGP: 0x99392F7D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | key available from keyservers
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > A sentence ends
> > .Ar here .
> > But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
>
>Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
> help?
Please, no trailing white space :-)!
Seriously, I think that all of the current mdoc
Cleaned up this post a little for the final (?) version of rc.diff. Back
by popular demand, double spaces after the periods! Well, partly by popular
demand and partly because I think it bouys my argument for a space after
the case options. :) Note the changed URL for the real file. Without
> On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> > A sentence ends
> > .Ar here .
> > But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
>
>Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
> help?
Please, no trailing white space :-)!
Seriously, I think that all of the current mdoc
Cleaned up this post a little for the final (?) version of rc.diff. Back
by popular demand, double spaces after the periods! Well, partly by popular
demand and partly because I think it bouys my argument for a space after
the case options. :) Note the changed URL for the real file. Without
Today Doug wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
>
> Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was
> the
> only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
>
> Doug
When I was in 8th gr
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was
the
only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
wit
Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> >
Today Doug wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
>
> Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was the
> only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
>
> Doug
When I was in 8th grad
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I guess they don't teach manual typewriting classes any more :-)
Actually I took that class in Jr. High School, way back in '77. It was the
only good advice my Jr. High guidance counselor gave me.
Doug
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "u
Nik Clayton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > > sentence.
> >
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> >
:>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
:> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
:
:I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
:Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
:for better reading
:>I've never heard of that. I've always found that two spaces
:> after end-of-sentence punctuation makes things easier to read!
:
:I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
:Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
:for better readin
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> A sentence ends
> .Ar here .
> But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
help?
--
|Chris Costello
|**FLASH** Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
`
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> A sentence ends
> .Ar here .
> But this new one has a single space preceeding it.
Does adding a space after the `.' at the end of your line
help?
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|**FLASH** Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
`
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this to
On Sat, Aug 28, 1999 at 05:45:05AM -0500, Mike Pritchard wrote:
>
> I vote for two spaces after the period before the start of a new sentence.
> Even in the digital age, I've always found that the two spaces make
> for better reading of text. I think that most of our formatting
> tools do this t
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this
> > > > file
> > > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that
> > > > file
>
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
>
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's falle
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > sentence.
>
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fallen into di
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
>
> > Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> > the digital age
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> > > +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fall
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 11:23:06AM -0700, Doug wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Sentences are supposed to have two spaces before you start the next
> > sentence.
>
> Well, that was definitely the old typographical convention, but in
> the digital age it's fallen into d
Maybe this is nit-picking, too, buth those are just
my 0.02 Euros...
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
I'd prefer to keep it with two spaces
Maybe this is nit-picking, too, buth those are just
my 0.02 Euros...
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> -# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check this file
> +# this file, but rather in /etc/defaults/rc.conf. Please check that file
I'd prefer to keep it with two space
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> [ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
A) You're in really good company. :)
B) I expected a lot of nits to be picked on this project, which is
why I wanted to do a "first draft" and solicit comments. I'm not overly
concerned a
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
>
> Ok, revised diff attached. I made the case indentation change and some
> of
> sheldon's suggestions are incorporated. I also neglected to mention
> previously that I tuned up a few of the comments in the file, as well as
> error output. I also was more
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> [ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
A) You're in really good company. :)
B) I expected a lot of nits to be picked on this project, which is
why I wanted to do a "first draft" and solicit comments. I'm not overly
concerned
[ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
> Doug--- /usr/src/etc/rc Thu Aug 26 20:56:36 1999
> +++ rcFri Aug 27 09:52:39 1999
> @@ -8,24 +8,25 @@
> # and the console is the controlling terminal.
>
> # Note that almost all the user-configurable behavior is no longer in
> -
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Doug wrote:
>
> Ok, revised diff attached. I made the case indentation change and some of
> sheldon's suggestions are incorporated. I also neglected to mention
> previously that I tuned up a few of the comments in the file, as well as
> error output. I also was more ri
Doug wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script
> mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables to case whereve
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> >case $? in
> > - 0)
> > + 0 )
> >;;
> > - 2)
> > + 2 )
> >exit 1
> >;;
> > - 4)
> > + 4 )
> >reboot
> >echo "reboo
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> > case $? in
> > -0)
> > +0 )
> > ;;
> > -2)
> > +2 )
> > exit 1
> > ;;
>
[ I'm nit-picking here, feel free to ignore ]
> Doug--- /usr/src/etc/rc Thu Aug 26 20:56:36 1999
> +++ rcFri Aug 27 09:52:39 1999
> @@ -8,24 +8,25 @@
> # and the console is the controlling terminal.
>
> # Note that almost all the user-configurable behavior is no longer in
>
Doug wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables to case wherever
Sheldon Hearn wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!)
Yeah -- Thanks Doug!
> Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
> used to seeing, and conditionals that do
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> >case $? in
> > - 0)
> > + 0 )
> >;;
> > - 2)
> > + 2 )
> >exit 1
> >;;
> > - 4)
> > + 4 )
> >reboot
> >echo "rebo
Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> > [...]
> > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > [...]
> > case $? in
> > -0)
> > +0 )
> > ;;
> > -2)
> > +2 )
> > exit 1
> > ;;
>
Sheldon Hearn wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
> required quite a bit of effort, thanks!)
Yeah -- Thanks Doug!
> Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
> used to seeing, and conditionals that d
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and conditiona
Hi folks,
What follows is a diff that presents Doug's changes (which must have
required quite a bit of effort, thanks!) in a slightly different format
which I think the grumpies here might prefer.
Specifically, case statements look more like what a lot of folks are
used to seeing, and condition
Doug wrote:
If looking at the before and after seperately, the indentation of the case
statements is IMHO bizzare and unlike anything I've seen before...
eg: Changing this:
> if [ "$1" = "autoboot" ]; then
> echo Automatic reboot in progress...
> fsck -p
> case $? in
> 0)
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Why?!? I like the existing "case" style _much_ better,
> it's more readable and emphasizes the structure.
I agree 100%.
> Regards
>Oliver
--
|Chris Costello
|A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.
`-
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> [...]
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> [...]
> case $? in
> -0)
> +0 )
> ;;
> -2)
> +2 )
> exit 1
> ;;
> -4)
> +4 )
> rebo
Doug wrote:
If looking at the before and after seperately, the indentation of the case
statements is IMHO bizzare and unlike anything I've seen before...
eg: Changing this:
> if [ "$1" = "autoboot" ]; then
> echo Automatic reboot in progress...
> fsck -p
> case $? in
> 0
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Why?!? I like the existing "case" style _much_ better,
> it's more readable and emphasizes the structure.
I agree 100%.
> Regards
>Oliver
--
|Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't br
Doug wrote in list.freebsd-hackers:
> [...]
> 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> [...]
> case $? in
> -0)
> +0 )
> ;;
> -2)
> +2 )
> exit 1
> ;;
> -4)
> +4 )
> reb
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > >
> > >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
> >
> > Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> > the extra whitespace.
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> >
> >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
>
> Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> the extra whitespace.
Would that not cause problems?
[A-Z]* )
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script
> > mods. I
> > consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> > variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably c
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables t
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, Chris Costello wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> > >
> > >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
> >
> > Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> > the extra whitespace.
>
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > > 2. value ) instead of value) for case statements
> >
> >Why? What's wrong with `value)'?
>
> Nothing functionally, but I find case statements much easier to read with
> the extra whitespace.
Would that not cause problems?
[A-Z]* )
Chris Costello wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> > consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> > variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably conve
On Thu, Aug 26, 1999, Doug wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> As previously discussed, here is a first draft of the rc* script mods. I
> consider the first step in this process to be Jordan's cleanup of the
> variable syntax. This is step 2, which most notably converts test's dealing
> with variables
80 matches
Mail list logo
